Technical study on silent keyboard

You are starting a discussion that could last a very long time. First of all, you frequently mention Rubinstein, whom I knew personally and with whom I spoke more than once. Let's say we are talking about a human being with an exceptional physique and a particularly gifted artist, who, by his own account, only needed to study little! Incredible! It is true when he speaks of the finger trick, but in my opinion, this served only to exorcise the little demon at the beginning of the concert. The way he entered in public generated an air of sympathy and authority at the same time that pervaded the hall. And his technical security, as he said, was based on great support of the keyboard. More than once, he made one feel the weight of his right hand in the cantabile on someone else's shoulder: it was impressive. Over time, I have become convinced that gravitation and the natural transfer of weight from one finger to another are at the basis of a great cantabile. His son John speaks of his father and says that his secret was "simplicity." That is, the loss of mental superstructures and total naturalization.

We often believe that a passage must be resolved when the hand assumes a certain position. I believe the opposite is true. If we observe the Greats of the keyboard, we notice that each one assumes their own position, depending on the different build and conformation of the hand. Therefore, in my view, the solution should be sought in the ability to manage the co-participation of small muscles and large muscles, and the choice of fundamental gestures—joints, rotation, etc.—most useful for this or that passage, etc. Consequently, the hand will assume the correct position.

Developing strength. Another somewhat more complex concept.

Developing energy on the piano does not mean building muscle, but almost always means putting the muscular apparatus under tension. In the beginning, the student does not produce a very energetic sound, but gradually, they will gain more and more confidence, that is, they will teach the muscles to sufficiently sustain the desired "intentions" and musical choices.

The technique, therefore, and its development (I have expressed this opinion in other posts as well) must deal with the sound and with the musical context of the sound.

Resolving a difficult passage musically often suggests to us how to use a certain technical formula.

As I wrote recently, doing G minor scales can be useful, but resolving the final G minor scales at the end of the first Ballade by Chopin is something else entirely.

After this tedious chat, which could prolong to your detriment, I find the use of silent keyboards, small practice instruments, and various gymnastics not useful for piano technique if they are far from the sound body. In my opinion, it is not gymnastic training or building muscle that makes us more skilled. It is certain that the passage of time, while trying to understand—especially mentally—what needs to be done to overcome a certain passage, will also make the student more skilled and confident. Confidence and tranquility during performance also depend on the awareness of having "honestly" resolved the difficulty and not just having relied on stubborn and torturous repetitions.

That is what I think.

P.S. If I have worked well, every time I sit at the piano, I will immediately or almost immediately find the solutions that I had consciously chosen. If "I have to start from scratch," then perhaps it means I have not internalized the solution. (this can happen when we think we are relying on infinite gymnastic repetitions)

P.P.S. with all this, I do not exclude warm-ups or calls to movement (Rubinstein's trick) or even short repetition times.

I will try not to digress too much.

Rubinstein and the weight of the shoulder that reaches his portentous fingers. There, without meaning to, we have already said everything. Weight of the shoulder. Portentous fingers.

Maurizio Pollini is one of the living pianists who speaks of this other instructive little game (this one about weight) that Rubinstein evidently loved to play with his followers (the other little game is that of table technique mentioned above).

I love Rubinstein for his charm and insight. But as a pianist, he seems very distant to me now. In other words, I feel Michelangeli and Horowitz are closer to me, two pianists who in other respects are classified today as "from another time"...

Tastes aside, I would say that the issue of "portentous fingers" is what lies at the center of my writing here.

In some way, these fingers must withstand the technique of weight, fall, and rotation. We know that the phalanges must create an arch to be able to correctly transmit the weight to the key. Any collapse will result in something nefarious, especially for the sound.

Looking at Horowitz, one says: damn, this man overcame the obstacle by playing with flat fingers. But anyone who has spent years in front of a keyboard doing exercises knows that is not the case.

The perfect finger must be able to play arched or extended, if not even curled in on itself (a limiting case in the absence of space).

As my first teacher used to say: "then you will play however you like..."

Yes and no. The so-called setting is fundamental, but the mental rigidity of a setting formulated ideologically and didactically can prove just as harmful as bad setting.

The final issue is that the fingers must be strong regardless. In the eighties of the last century, when I began my first studies, in his numerous writings Rattalino used the expression "fingers that carve marble"; it somewhat paired with what my teacher from the Vidussian school used to say (it wasn't Rattalino, let's be clear): "the pianist's hand must be like a sculpture".

And I think of the cast of Chopin's hand...

The discussion, therefore, is how to obtain steel fingers (always Rattalino) perhaps starting from butter fingers...

If the keyboard of a modern digital piano is mute or silenced, why not exploit it?